H. L. DATTU, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER was an employee of Karnataka state road transport corporation ('corporation' for short ). By an Order dated 3-6-1988, the appellate authority confirmed the orders made by the disciplinary authority dated 6-3-1987, as a result of which, petitioner has approached this court in a petition filed under article 226 of the constitution inter alia contending that the Order imposing punishment by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate authority is vitiated and the orders are illegal and invalid, inasmuch as the circular instructions issued by the corporation is only prospective and such circular could not have been issued by respondent-corporation which would interfere with the discretion and functioning of quasi-judicial authority like disciplinary authority. ( 2 ) MOST of the facts are not in dispute. Petitioner while working as divisional controller, Manglore division, mangalore was served with a charge memo dated 16-9-1985 containing charges of misconduct as divisional manager. Along with the charge memo, petitioner was also furnished with statement of imputations, list of witnesses and documents. The delinquent officer was asked to offer his explanation to the charge memo within 10 days of the receipt of the memo as the enquiry was proposed to be held against him. By reply dated 9-10-1985, petitioner filed his written-statement of defence in detail, denying that he had committed the acts of misconduct as alleged in the charge memo on the various dates which constituted acts of misconduct and insubordination. Since the explanation offered by the delinquent was not satisfactory, the disciplinary authority appointed an enquiry officer who after holding the enquiry submitted his report together with the records of the enquiry proceedings and other documents to the disciplinary authority. In the enquiry officer's view, the delinquent is not guilty of anyone of the charges alleged in the memo. The disciplinary authority after disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer and after reappreciating the evidence on record, being of the view that the petitioner is guilty of the offences alleged in the memo, passed an Order dated 6-3-1987, imposing the following punishment. The same reads as under: ( 3 ) DISTURBED by this Order, petitioner had filed an appeal before the appellate authority as provided under the conduct rules of the corporation, who in turn by his Order dated 3-6-1988, rejected the appeal on merits and confirmed the orders made by the disciplinary authority. The same reads as under: ( 3 ) DISTURBED by this Order, petitioner had filed an appeal before the appellate authority as provided under the conduct rules of the corporation, who in turn by his Order dated 3-6-1988, rejected the appeal on merits and confirmed the orders made by the disciplinary authority. ( 4 ) THOUGH numerous grounds are raised in support of the prayer for quashing the orders of appellate and disciplinary authorities, what has been really pressed into service is, the contention that the circular instruction issued by respondent-corporation is prospective and governs the cases arising after 15-1-1985 and it has no application to those cases which had arisen and decided before that date. The second contention is that the corporation could not have issued instruction through their circular. Which would interfere with the discretion and functioning of quasi-judicial authority like the divisional controller and at any rate, the contravention of those instructions cannot be termed as acts of misconduct and the disciplinary authority could not have held the disciplinary enquiry in respect of conduct of an officer in discharge of his quasi-judicial duties. The third contention is that the failure to give notice by the disciplinary authority to the petitioner when he disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer would vitiate the proceedings. A feeble argument was advanced that the charges are vague and lack material particulars and the delinquent was prevented from effectively filing his explanation by way of defence and therefore, proceedings are opposed to rules of natural justice. Lastly, it was submitted that the allegations made in the charge memo do not constitute misconduct. ( 5 ) SRI b. b. mandappa, learned counsel for the respondents ably supported the impugned orders and resisted the reliefs sought for by petitioner. ( 6 ) THE charge memo dated 16-9-1985 contains charges of misconduct. In that, it is alleged that delinquent while working as divisional controller of mangalore division of the corporation had wilfully disobeyed the orders of chief executive of the corporation conveyed through circular bearing No. Kst:co:adm:rules 2627 of 84-85, dated 15-1-1985 regarding the conductors in the waiting list who are involved in "red mark" cases. In that, it is alleged that delinquent while working as divisional controller of mangalore division of the corporation had wilfully disobeyed the orders of chief executive of the corporation conveyed through circular bearing No. Kst:co:adm:rules 2627 of 84-85, dated 15-1-1985 regarding the conductors in the waiting list who are involved in "red mark" cases. Secondly, they accuse him of repeatedly and successively imposing ineffective punishments on 18 conductors despite they being caught in "red mark" cases, thereby allowing the chronic defaulters to thrive with impunity and failing to safeguard the interest of the corporation. ( 7 ) DELINQUENT had denied the charges alleged against him in his reply to the charge memo. In so far as the first charge, the delinquent in his explanation states that the circular dated 15-1-1985 is prospective in operation and governs cases arising after 15-1-1985 and it has no application to the cases that had arisen before that date. This assertion of the delinquent is contrary to the facts alleged in the imputation of misconduct served on the petitioner along with the charge memo. In the statement of imputations, respondents refer to nearly 18 cases where the delinquent is said to have imposed ineffective punishments in disobedience of the circular instructions dated 15-1-1985, wherein the chief executive of the corporation instructs that the conductors in the waiting list who are caught in "red mark" cases should be compulsorily removed from the 'badli list' following the procedure prescribed. The cases referred to by the respondents in their statement of imputation not only refers to cases decided by the delinquent prior to issuance of the circular but also cases after issuing and circulating the circular dated 15-1-1985. The circular is issued by the head of the organisation. It has the binding effect on its subordinate authorities. Petitioner could not have ignored the instructions contained in the circular and could not have imposed lesser and ineffective punishment that what was indicated in the circular. Petitioner justifies his action only by saying that all the 18 cases referred to in the charge-sheet is of the conductors caught in "red mark" cases prior to issue of circular dated 15-1-1985 which is wholly contrary to the facts stated in the statement of imputation. Petitioner justifies his action only by saying that all the 18 cases referred to in the charge-sheet is of the conductors caught in "red mark" cases prior to issue of circular dated 15-1-1985 which is wholly contrary to the facts stated in the statement of imputation. The disciplinary authority taking into consideration the circular instructions and its binding effect on the subordinate officers of the department holds that the delinquent is guilty of the charge of disobeying the lawful orders of chief executive of the corporation conveyed through circular dated 15-1-1985. I do not think that the disciplinary authority has committed any error in coming to that conclusion since the allegations that are made against the petitioner pertains not only to those cases which were considered and decided by him prior to the issuance of circular but also those cases arising after issuance and communication of the circular to the unit heads. Therefore, first contention of the learned counsel deserves to be rejected and it is rejected. ( 8 ) THE second contention of the learned counsel is that the disciplinary authority could not have held any inquiry, much less disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner in respect of the conduct of an officer in discharge of his quasi-judicial duties. The subsidiary contention is that violation of circular instructions issued by the chief executive officer of the corporation by the divisional controller while discharging its quasijudicial function cannot be construed as misconduct. In my view, this contention of the learned counsel is no more a debatable issue in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Union of India v Upendra Singh. The Court Was Pleased to observe as under: ( 9 ) IN view of the law declared by the apex court. I do not think any elaborate discussion is required on this issue. In that view of the matter, the second issue raised by learned counsel for the petitioner has no merit and accordingly, it is rejected. ( 10 ) NOW coming to the third issue, even this issue should not detain me for long, in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of state bank of India, Bhopal v S. S. Koshal. ( 10 ) NOW coming to the third issue, even this issue should not detain me for long, in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of state bank of India, Bhopal v S. S. Koshal. In the said decision, the court was pleased to observe as under: ( 11 ) RESPECTFULLY following the dicta of the apex court in the aforesaid decision, the third contention of the learned counsel is rejected. ( 12 ) INSOFAR as the fourth and the last contention of the learned counsel is concerned, the settled position of law is that, the charges should contain particulars and should be specific and not vague, otherwise it will vitiate the entire enquiry proceedings. Whether charges are vague or not, has to be examined in the light of the circumstances of each case. A reading of the charge memo dated 10-9-1985 would definitely indicate that the charge-sheet is not so vague or so general as to make it impossible for making effective representation. In my view, charges alleged in the charge memo is capable of being understood and sufficiently definite for the delinquent official to make effective representation and therefore, it cannot be said that the enquiry is vitiated on account of omission of particulars, and the delinquent was prejudiced in any manner, whatsoever. Accordingly, this issue also has no merit and accordingly, it is rejected. ( 13 ) THESE are the only four issues raised by learned counsel srinarayana bhat for petitioner. Since I have negatived all the contentions canvassed, the petition deserves to be dismissed. ( 14 ) FOR the reasons stated, there is no merit in the petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. Rule discharged. No Order as to costs. --- *** --- .